Too crude movement areas, too much a question of abstracted details, based on ratings, not enough actual maneuver or planning. No real sense of the terrain which shaped the war.

The way river gunboats are handled is completely unrepresentative of the role these played.

And the detailed battles are ridiculous.

Just finished a battle where my force of 69,000 was beaten by 23,000, simply because of this morale bonus for the defender. Had the defending forces completely hemmed in by surrounding troops, firing into flanks, they were taking huge casualties, but instead of the defenders breaking, my relatively untouched force did...

First question: Are you running a version that's all patched up, showing version 1.10.10 when you load it?

Second question: Regarding scenarios, are you comparing like to like? The November "Standard Scenario" is matched with the July "Coming Fury (Balanced Economy)" scenario, while "Southern Steel" and "Coming Fury" are matched in terms of economic balance. (You can read about this in the ReadMe.pdf patch documentation.

Regarding your 69K vs. 23K battle, we'd need more information to figure out what went wrong. Usually in a case like this there is something the (new) player didn't understand. For example, this could be a supply issue -- if your troops were set on low supply they might have been running out of supply, while the AI enemy had been set on high supply. Or, if this is the first turn of the game and you were playing as the Union it might just be that at the very start of the game the Union's soldiers and generals are inferior -- with both improving over time. Another factor might be the yellow and red threat zones, which erode an army's morale. (Threat zones can be a REAL pain. But that's why they're there!) So it is quite possible that there was something going on that as a new player you didn't realize was going on. Do any of these seem possible?

As for gunboats, we deliberately abstracted the naval component of the game, though gunboats do still play an important role. What exactly do you think is missing?

And finally, as far as your point about movement areas, maneuver and planning go, this is a strategic-level game rather than an operational one. Some people like that approach, others don't. So it's a matter of personal taste rather than an objective flaw in the game.

I hope you will give FOF another chance. There have been numerous examples of people who at first had a negative reaction but then once they came to understand what was going on became big fans.

What do I think is missing re. gunboats? That they could control supply across rivers they patrolled. As the game stands now, they are no impediment at all to enemy ground units which want to trace supply. Plus they are destroyed far too easily by having a ground unit move into the same province. Unless there is a fort blocking their way, they should be able to retreat along as many river provinces as they need to.

Continuing on the subject of ships. Why are Naval ships prohibited from going up the Missisipi? Historically they sailed right past the forts at the mouth of the river and captured New Orleans, then sailed further up past Natchez. As the rules stand now, it is impossible to capture New Orleans the way it was done historically, or to capture Mobile the same way.

There is no differentiation between forts on a river or on a coast, and forts inland. Big difference historically Forts did not have all around defences, they defended in particular directions.

On to the Detailed battle map. There is clearly no understanding of how Civil War battles worked.

Start with Cavalry: Cavalry can roar around the battlefield, charging Infantry in the flank at will. Historically Cavalry had absolutely no effect on Civil war battlefields except when matched up against enemy cavalry or when dismounted. Cavalry which went anywhere near Infantry when mounted. was shot to pieces.

Artillery is as badly modelled. They act like tanks instead of the very vulnerable formations they were. Artillery in the Civil war was positional weapon, which only could be moved when at considerable distance from enemy infantry. Any attempt to limber or unlimber in range of enemy infantry would be suicidal. In the game Artillery can roar up to Infantry unlimber and blast away with no problem at all.

What do I think is missing re. gunboats? That they could control supply across rivers they patrolled. As the game stands now, they are no impediment at all to enemy ground units which want to trace supply. Plus they are destroyed far too easily by having a ground unit move into the same province. Unless there is a fort blocking their way, they should be able to retreat along as many river provinces as they need to.

Continuing on the subject of ships. Why are Naval ships prohibited from going up the Missisipi? Historically they sailed right past the forts at the mouth of the river and captured New Orleans, then sailed further up past Natchez. As the rules stand now, it is impossible to capture New Orleans the way it was done historically, or to capture Mobile the same way.

There is no differentiation between forts on a river or on a coast, and forts inland. Big difference historically Forts did not have all around defences, they defended in particular directions.

On to the Detailed battle map. There is clearly no understanding of how Civil War battles worked.

Start with Cavalry: Cavalry can roar around the battlefield, charging Infantry in the flank at will. Historically Cavalry had absolutely no effect on Civil war battlefields except when matched up against enemy cavalry or when dismounted. Cavalry which went anywhere near Infantry when mounted. was shot to pieces.

Artillery is as badly modelled. They act like tanks instead of the very vulnerable formations they were. Artillery in the Civil war was positional weapon, which only could be moved when at considerable distance from enemy infantry. Any attempt to limber or unlimber in range of enemy infantry would be suicidal. In the game Artillery can roar up to Infantry unlimber and blast away with no problem at all.

This game needs a LOT of work.

I believe you are mistsaken. To the best of my understanding you can go up rivers, I think. At least gun boats can and they are really the only ones that did.

As far as cavalry I think they portray it accurately. While one has the option to use them as infantry, whenever they do charge infantry they almost always fail. It's all how YOU, the commander chooses to ue it. I use my cavalry where they belong, on the flanks, to guard from flank attacks or to scout my own offensive. FoF realistaccly portrays them how they were: Not as charging material but more fighting delaying actions. May I also remind you how at Gettysburg with Buford and Wilson t Nashville Cavalry are able to fight infantry, if you use them the right way.

When you talk about the arttilery, it too is rather realistic. You can keep them in reserve to bombard or rush them up into the thick of it to have a greater effect. But many times when yu do the thing you talked about, it leaves your guns in the ppen where they can be surrounded and captured, just how it was in history.

So please, give FoF a chance. I too was real dissapointed when I first got it, but now it's my favorite game. Try it on harder levels maybe, when you do that, your enemy actually has complex manuvers. So if your going to criticize FoF, bash it's graphics or engine, but not it's accuracy. That is it's greatest strength. You may not like the style but thats fine, we all have our own tastes. But I've played nearly every ACW game made, and I can assure you that FoF is the most accurate.

I too must agree with Jonah's comments as I also believe that the tactical battles play out pretty close to actual Civil War battles.

I too use my cavalry for screening my advance and scouting for enemy forces. Very rarely do I commit them to charge an established line of infantry. If the enemy infantry breaks, then I send in the cavalry to keep them running.

I also consider artillery to be fairly depicted as I must choose the ground carefully where to unlimber them since it does take a while to limber them for moving. It's not as easy as Buzzsaw makes it out to be to move artillery around on a busy and dangerous battlefield.

Buzzsaw, I should add to their comments that in the patch we're about to release we've made a change that keeps artillery from getting too close to the enemy. We also have added an "Efficient Fire" special ability, the description of which is "Unit may ignore the restriction that artillery units cannot fire after moving more than 4 hexes." Both changes were made as a result of player feedback, and we'll certainly consider other ideas.

Two of his ships ran past the guns at Port Hudson and actually went up the river to just below Vicksburg.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonah

As far as cavalry I think they portray it accurately. While one has the option to use them as infantry, whenever they do charge infantry they almost always fail.

Not in my experience. I have had the AI cavalry appear out of nowhere, from out of visibility range and charge right into the rear of my infantry, trash them, then run away again. In reality, Infantry would spot Cavalry and have time to turn and cut them down before they got close. Historically there were no instances of Cavalry attacking infantry successfully when mounted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonah May I also remind you how at Gettysburg with Buford and Wilson t Nashville Cavalry are able to fight infantry, if you use them the right way.

Buford and Wilson fought dismounted. They didn't charge up mounted. They dismounted before they were engaged, fought defensively, did not expose their horses to fire.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonah When you talk about the arttilery, it too is rather realistic. You can keep them in reserve to bombard or rush them up into the thick of it to have a greater effect.

Historically bringing up Artillery and unlimbering them in range of infantry was suicidal. Horses are big targets and they would all be cut down, and the artillery would be left with no way to get away. Plus artillerymen had to fight standing up, they couldn't hide behind trees or stones, and that made them more vulnerable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonah I've played nearly every ACW game made, and I can assure you that FoF is the most accurate.

Then you've never played TAKE COMMAND, Second Manassas, which is easily the best game out there. The designer of that game understood how Civil War battles worked. Try running your artillery up and unlimbering in front of infantry in that game.

The game should have differentiated between Coastal and River guarding forts and the inland fortifications which were created by Infantry digging trenches. Gunboats and Ships were able to run the gauntlet and get past the river guarding or Coastal forts, as they did at New Orleans, or Mobile Bay, or on rivers as they did at Vicksburg.

There was a big difference between fortifications like Fort Sumter which guarded the coast and the entrance to Charleston Bay and the Confederate land entrenchements which guarded Petersburg and Richmond, or the Union fortifications which protected the land approaches to Washington.

All forts should have had some facing and be vulnerable to being attacked from the rear.

By the way, Fortress Monroe should be a port to allow the Union to land and embark troops from there. McClellan landed a whole army in the Peninsula, then re-embarked it. You can't do that in the game.

The whole map for the Peninsula and the opposite side, ie. Norfolk is wrong.

The basic problem with FoF is that the area/provinces are way too big. You should re-do the map with the same system, so that there are more areas, the areas are smaller, so they really give a feel for the terrain and maneuver options. BLUE AND GREY does a much better job of making a map which feels like the real enviroment, and where you need to maneuver to get anywhere. (that game has lots of problems too)

And also, you have the ships incorrectly identified as to type. There were no 'Ships'. The biggest ships the Union had were Steam Frigates. The ships used for closein blockade were smaller types, which could navigate rivers easily, even shallow ones.

The game should have differentiated between Coastal and River guarding forts and the inland fortifications which were created by Infantry digging trenches. Gunboats and Ships were able to run the gauntlet and get past the river guarding or Coastal forts, as they did at New Orleans, or Mobile Bay, or on rivers as they did at Vicksburg.

There was a big difference between fortifications like Fort Sumter which guarded the coast and the entrance to Charleston Bay and the Confederate land entrenchements which guarded Petersburg and Richmond, or the Union fortifications which protected the land approaches to Washington.

Erik Rutins has suggested this very thing, which we'll consider if we do a FOF2.

All forts should have had some facing and be vulnerable to being attacked from the rear.

By the way, Fortress Monroe should be a port to allow the Union to land and embark troops from there. McClellan landed a whole army in the Peninsula, then re-embarked it. You can't do that in the game.

It can't be a normal port, because it was qualitatively different from New Orleans, Charleston and other ports in FOF. So there would have to be some specialized coding. But I'm a bit confused -- why can't you land an army there now? In other words, what would you want to be able to do that you can't do?

The whole map for the Peninsula and the opposite side, ie. Norfolk is wrong.

The basic problem with FoF is that the area/provinces are way too big. You should re-do the map with the same system, so that there are more areas, the areas are smaller, so they really give a feel for the terrain and maneuver options. BLUE AND GREY does a much better job of making a map which feels like the real enviroment, and where you need to maneuver to get anywhere. (that game has lots of problems too)

Ahh, here you're coming into a conversation long after it has already taken place. As we explained soon after release, the map is necessarily abstracted to some degree because of graphics-related reasons (that I, as a non-programmer and non-graphics designer, cannot explain). We know that Richmond, Fort Henry, and several other cities and forts are not where they should be, but that's because every city and fort is actually a movable graphics unit and the game places them in a logical (i.e., graphics-logical) spot on an invisible grid, sometimes moving them when it needs to show other units in the province.

As for the size of provinces, this is partly a graphics issue (small provinces means not enough room to display all the units in them without stacking and/or reducing them in size) and partly a programming issue. If you have lots of smaller provinces then armies can easily miss each other, and it's harder for the AI to be challenging because the more provinces, the more options for the AI, and thus the more "state spaces." (Search for that phrase in the FOF forum and you'll find multiple discourses by Eric on the importance of state spaces in AI design. It's actually quite interesting.) So, overall, there are legitimate reasons for all of this. (That said, I do have an idea or two about how to introduce more maneuver into a FOF2, should we make one.)

And also, you have the ships incorrectly identified as to type. There were no 'Ships'. The biggest ships the Union had were Steam Frigates. The ships used for closein blockade were smaller types, which could navigate rivers easily, even shallow ones.

We deliberately made the naval part of the game abstract so as to put more into the land game. As our upcoming "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition" release will show, when a war is famous for its naval battles we're willing to put a ton of detail and effort into the naval game, so this was a design decision on our part not to do that.

ORIGINAL: Gil R. It can't be a normal port, because it was qualitatively different from New Orleans, Charleston and other ports in FOF. So there would have to be some specialized coding. But I'm a bit confused -- why can't you land an army there now? In other words, what would you want to be able to do that you can't do?

You can't re-embark the army. It is marooned there. Historically, after McClellan's withdrawal back to Harrison's landing after the 7 days battles, he re-embarked his Army and brought it back to Washington.

This appears to be the ONLY thing I find "wrong" with the system is that the amphibious / fortress union capabilities are lacking. I'd love to play you in a game (PBEM) and share our experiences so as to gain a little more knowlege.

You can't re-embark the army. It is marooned there. Historically, after McClellan's withdrawal back to Harrison's landing after the 7 days battles, he re-embarked his Army and brought it back to Washington.

Okay, that's true, but I'd point out that the only time in the Civil War that an army landed and then withdrew was this one, when the commanding general lost his spine, and really had no business withdrawing.

The idea of making it possible to withdraw from the Yorktown Peninsula is one that we can consider if we do a FOF2.

Just had a corps-sized amphibious force defeated in the Lower Mississippi after taking Fort St. Phillips and starting the siege of New Orleans. The computer sent them back to Annapolis, one would assume on the fleet the was offshore supplying them although the fleet itself remained in the Gulf. So while they could not be withdrawn by choice they were withdrawn by circumstances although four of the nine brigades involved shed their weapons in the process.

Not an unreasonable outcome, considering.

I hope that any FoF2 will prevent grand WW2 style "Second Front" amphib ops that would have been logistically impractical and doctrinally unlikely in the 1860's.

after several weeks of non stop play the wife and i have come to the conclusion that the north is pretty screwed. the defensive morale boost is extremely difficult to overcome. we have found that even when you overlap both flanks of the south and are firing directly into their rear flanks it still is usually the north that breaks. we were seriously hoping that the new patch would do something about this. when you have southern brigades with 7 morale, and northern brigades with 1 and even under, the north just doesn't stand a chance. please, for the love of GOD man, fix this massive disparity. trust me, my wife isn't napoleon, but no matter how ridiculous her battlefield decisions, grant and shermans elite veterans are going to break and run, because their morale is far too low. but then if she turns around and attacks me, all of a sudden my morale is higher than hers. there has to be a better way.

after several weeks of non stop play the wife and i have come to the conclusion that the north is pretty screwed. the defensive morale boost is extremely difficult to overcome. we have found that even when you overlap both flanks of the south and are firing directly into their rear flanks it still is usually the north that breaks. we were seriously hoping that the new patch would do something about this. when you have southern brigades with 7 morale, and northern brigades with 1 and even under, the north just doesn't stand a chance. please, for the love of GOD man, fix this massive disparity. trust me, my wife isn't napoleon, but no matter how ridiculous her battlefield decisions, grant and shermans elite veterans are going to break and run, because their morale is far too low. but then if she turns around and attacks me, all of a sudden my morale is higher than hers. there has to be a better way.

you need to train up new troops, give them weapons, gain morale and exp, soon you will have more and better troops then the South, you try to bull rush the south with the Starting Union troops, you going to get your head handed to you, the same with the South

the North, needs to build up, take what they can take, and get ready, by 63, they should be on Par with the South while on the Advance

Push in the West, hold in the East, Bleed the South as you can, where you can, when you can, you will cripple the South though the West

Also never stop attacking the south. The north have numbers, use them. Attack every turn and bllody the southern armies. Never stop attacking. Even if you lose every battle, the south will soon be a hollow wreck. Build camps every turn, muster every turn. Use the abilities the north has. The south has the ability to do well on the field, that's fine but use your tech and massive numbers to wear them down. By 63 you'll see why I mean.

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

after several weeks of non stop play the wife and i have come to the conclusion that the north is pretty screwed. the defensive morale boost is extremely difficult to overcome. we have found that even when you overlap both flanks of the south and are firing directly into their rear flanks it still is usually the north that breaks. we were seriously hoping that the new patch would do something about this. when you have southern brigades with 7 morale, and northern brigades with 1 and even under, the north just doesn't stand a chance. please, for the love of GOD man, fix this massive disparity. trust me, my wife isn't napoleon, but no matter how ridiculous her battlefield decisions, grant and shermans elite veterans are going to break and run, because their morale is far too low. but then if she turns around and attacks me, all of a sudden my morale is higher than hers. there has to be a better way.

you need to train up new troops, give them weapons, gain morale and exp, soon you will have more and better troops then the South, you try to bull rush the south with the Starting Union troops, you going to get your head handed to you, the same with the South

the North, needs to build up, take what they can take, and get ready, by 63, they should be on Par with the South while on the Advance

Push in the West, hold in the East, Bleed the South as you can, where you can, when you can, you will cripple the South though the West

That's a wonderful strategy.

However, for FoF to be representative of the ACW it should be able to reproduce the historical result. Hold in the West and attack in the East and win the war.

Letting Sherman march through the south doesn't hurt anything. At the moment with the NW bug that's really hard to do. The patch should make that a much better strategy.

There are two distinctly different games in FoF. The one where you play with detailed combat and the one where you use Quick Combat or Instant Combat to resolve the battles. They are not comparable.

The QC/IC seems far less forgiving to the Union. There don't seem to be flanking maneuvers. Only frontal assaults. Those are expensive in the extreme. So, if you are playing PBEM as the Union get ready to take bloody losses for most of the game.

i'm not exactly sure how to train my troops and gain morale. is it just by assigning generals to them and then their training and morale raises slowly over time automatically? and by mustering, isn't it only 50 percent chance i'll receive a voluntary brigade? we hardly ever use that or conscription, because sometimes the states really get upset. so you think i should use that more? one more thing, i know this is way off topic so forgive in advance. a couple times my wife playing the south has attacked with her armies, and she tends to go hog wild on artillery, and when her army shows up, a lot of her artillery brigades are improvised instead of the guns she has bought. were playing with all advanced rules, is this because of a supply deficiency? we cant really figure out why this is. is it because she has to much artillery? anyways thanks for your assistance.

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian, You should take a look at what we're doing for "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition." As you'll see, if WCS does a second version of a game we put enough new features and major changes into it that no one who owns the original and is buying the new & improved version has any reason to feel cheated. I think that we can safely stand on our record. (Or, at least, the record we will have once COG:EE is released!)

Couple comments about the game giving the southern soldiers higher morale.

To give the Southern soldiers higher morale across the board is incorrect.

The historical reality was that SOME of the Northern recruits were lower 'morale', the reasons for this were several.

Soldiers recruited out of heavily urban centers had less experience in handling weapons and firing them than the typical southern recruit, they were less experienced in being out in the outdoors, camping, hunting, etc. The recruits from the backwoods farms were more self reliant, and used to seeing blood, (animals slaughtered) etc. This made them more a home and at confident in the army. There were also quite a number of new emigrants mustered or conscripted into the Union Army from the big cities who had problems with language etc. which gave them a disadvantage in communication on the battlefield.

The above factors did give the mostly rural southern recruits a combat advantage over the northerners recruited IN CITIES, but they DID NOT give them an advantage over the large number of northerners who were from the mostly rural Western states or even the upstate parts of the Eastern US. Recruits from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. were just as much a product of the backwoods as any southerner, and it showed when they met the southerners on the battlefield, as we all know from Shiloh, and all the battles in the West where the Western Union soldiers beat the southerner's handily.

If the game is represent things better, it should have lower starting morale levels for Union recruits who start in heavily urban areas, but not those who start in rural states.

The advantage the Confederates had was in the overall level of leadership.

The problem the game has is in the ability for the Union player to promote its good generals too fast. The Union player can cherry pick the best and promote them, so the Union has its leadership problems solved relatively easily.

The game should prevent Generals from being promoted unless they have had success in the field. There is also the issue of seniority, which was a factor in who got promoted.

Recruits from Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, etc. were just as much a product of the backwoods as any southerner, and it showed when they met the southerners on the battlefield, as we all know from Shiloh, and all the battles in the West where the Western Union soldiers beat the southerner's handily.

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian, You should take a look at what we're doing for "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition." As you'll see, if WCS does a second version of a game we put enough new features and major changes into it that no one who owns the original and is buying the new & improved version has any reason to feel cheated. I think that we can safely stand on our record. (Or, at least, the record we will have once COG:EE is released!)

In September we stopped playing FoF because of 2 major bugs that affect game play. As of yet, 5 months later, there is no patch for the game to play correctly. One of those bugs affects PBEM play the other affects all types of strategic play. Neither, to my knowledge, affects game play in the tactical combat system.

That's not the kind of record I would want for touting a newer version of the game for another $60.

That was because riding and hunting on horseback was a southern tradition amongst the leisured Upper classes.

When the war started, many of these types formed Cavalry regiments, and the southern system required them to bring their own horse, saddle, etc.

They had a big advantage in that they were ready to ride immediately, they were at home in the saddle, they had good horses and equipment. Their only disadvantage was in having not particularly good long weapons, but in the early days, most of the combat was Cavalry vs Cavalry, and the pistols and shotguns the Southern Cavalry were equipped with were good enough.

On the other hand, the Northern Cavalry regt's were formed from ordinary recruits, they had their horses and equipment supplied by contractors. Because of corruption, many of the horses were sub-standard, and the equipment also. Many of the recruits had no idea of how to ride a horse, and had to start from scratch.

All of these factors gave the Southerners huge advantages in their initial Cavalry forces, it wasn't till the Northern Cavalry was thoroughly re-organized and re-equipped that they were able to compete. And when they started to get Sharps Carbines, or other effective weapons, they began to outclass the Southerners, who were often still equipped with rifled muskets.

Early Union Cavalry should have lousy morale. The Confederates should probably also get a few of their recruited brigades as Cavalry at the start, and they should be pretty decent morale.

You're saying that the gamers that bought the first game, and have now playtested it for you, and pointed out where it was lacking, are going to get to buy another game rather than you patching this one, to have it be where it should have been in the first place?

I never buy a second game, for the exact same gaming situation I have already paid for, by the same game developer. If the game you sell me in the first place wasn't good enough to stand on it's own, with a limited number of patches, I'm not interested in paying for another version. To pay $80 - $100 for a game when you buy it twice is something I've never done. I don't see myself doing that for FoF/FoF 2 either.

That's my $.02 worth on a FoF 2. Others may not agree with my attitude.

Good Hunting.

MR

Mad Russian, You should take a look at what we're doing for "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition." As you'll see, if WCS does a second version of a game we put enough new features and major changes into it that no one who owns the original and is buying the new & improved version has any reason to feel cheated. I think that we can safely stand on our record. (Or, at least, the record we will have once COG:EE is released!)

As I understand this, you are currently working on a 2nd version of "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition". While FoF has major bugs for more than 5 months with no patch.

You then seem to think that when "Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition" number 2 comes out, it will be worth another full game price, to those who paid for the original game.

You apparently, also, think I should be willing to do the same for Forge of Freedom, while I wait for you to patch this current version of the game. Then, if you decide to fix it's issues, I should be willing to pay you for a second version?

1 i'm not exactly sure how to train my troops and gain morale. is it just by assigning generals to them and then their training and morale raises slowly over time automatically? 2 and by mustering, isn't it only 50 percent chance i'll receive a voluntary brigade? we hardly ever use that or conscription, because sometimes the states really get upset. so you think i should use that more? 3 one more thing, i know this is way off topic so forgive in advance. a couple times my wife playing the south has attacked with her armies, and she tends to go hog wild on artillery, and when her army shows up, a lot of her artillery brigades are improvised instead of the guns she has bought. were playing with all advanced rules, is this because of a supply deficiency? we cant really figure out why this is. is it because she has to much artillery? anyways thanks for your assistance.

1: keeping generals will slowly increase your troops, but the fastest way is to get them involved in combat. Building a training ground in the state you build a unit will also increase its effeciancy when it is built. 2: The chance to successfully muster changes. Each city will tell you how high the chance is when you enter the city and look at the muster "button". Yes, mustering tends ot upset GOVs, so look for any GOV that supports muster/conscript. If a GOV does so, you can muster with no risk. 3: not seen that before, bug?

Lawbreaker, That sounds like it could be a bug. Do you know whether this happens in the same turn, or have the units already clearly had guns for a while and then suddenly lost them?

By the way, I assume the two of you use the hotseat option? If so, you'll like the new "z-screen" feature we've added to the patch, which hides the screen from the other player until he/she has hit the 'z' key. I'm posting the (incredibly boring) screenshot below. Someone on the forum who plays hotseat asked for such a feature -- perhaps you? -- so we added it to the patch. (Turned out to be pretty complicated, too, and added significantly to the length of time it took to finish the patch. But it will be worth it, no doubt.)

Mad Russian, No one has ever said that current owners of COG will pay the full amount for COG:EE, so I have no idea why you claim this as fact. Nor has anyone ever suggested this for a hypothetical FOF2. The fact is that in recent weeks I have very clearly stated regarding COG:EE that I did not know what Matrix would do in terms of pricing, since I had not yet been informed of any decision, and therefore could say nothing about the matter. As it turns out, it is now official that anyone who owns COG will get a discount on COG:EE. And should we one day produce a FOF2 I am sure that a similar discount will apply.

to the best of our recollection, i had taken a province in tennessee, and she attacked with about 80,000 men and six brigades of artillery. she had purchased mostly ordnance rifles, napoleons and howitzers. her army had definitely set there a while before she attacked, maybe one was a recent addition. when we got to battle almost all of them were improvised. we think that one of the brigades was elite and came with 12 pound howitzers when she made it, that one still had it's guns. once i had an ordinance rifle brigade show up in combat improvised also. it happened to her one other time too, but not as bad as that main battle. about the hot seat mode, i don't think it was my post that asked for the ability to hide our combat moves, but i did read somebodies thread about it. we definitely will use it to hide our troop movements from each other, thats a great addition. to terje 439, thanks for that info on the training ground. i'll definitely apply that. and i'll start looking for governors who are cool with the muster.